1. Dr. Tabakian’s Political Science 2
Modern World Governments – Fall 2012
Power Point Presentation – September 11th & September 13th
2. COURSE LECTURE TOPICS
This Week’s Lecture Covers:
•The West Versus The Rest
Examining Globalization
Cultural Conflict
Rational Choice – Understanding Conflict
•Culture As Major Influence Of Public Policy
•Political Socialization - Impact Of Societal Norms
•Societal Norms Of Behavior – Worldwide Implementation
•Trends Shaping Contemporary Political Cultures
Stability
Transition
Paradigms
•Interest Group Conflict
3. COURSE LECTURE: WEEK #3 (2)
•Three Levels Of Political Culture
Political System
Political & Policymaking Process
Policy Outputs & Outcomes
•Importance Of Culture
•Political Socialization
•Trends That Shape Contemporary Political Culture
•Citizen Action
•Types Of Citizen Participation
•Interest Groups
•Interest Group Systems
•Policy Perspectives & Interest Articulation
•Developing An Interest Group
5. COMPARATIVE POLITICS TODAY
KEY TERMS FOR CHAPTER 3
1. Agents Of Political Socialization
2. Democratization
3. Fundamentalism
4. Legitimacy
5. Marketization
6. Modernization
7. Parochials
8. Participants
9. Political Culture
10.Political Socialization
11.Political Subcultures
12.Subjects
6. COMPARATIVE POLITICS TODAY
KEY TERMS FOR CHAPTER 4 (1)
1. Anomic Groups
2. Associational Groups
3. Channels Of Political Access
4. Civil Society
5. Collective Society
6. Collective Action Problem
7. Controlled Interest Group Systems
8. Institutional Groups
9. Interest Articulation
10.Mass Media
11.Neo-Corporatist Interest Group Systems
12.Non-Associational Groups
13.Pluralist Interest Group Systems
14.Political Terror Tactics
8. Political Culture and Political Socialization
• Each nation has its own political norms that influence how
people think and act about politics.
• The way political institutions function at least partially reflects
the public’s attitudes, norms, and expectations.
• Political culture: public attitudes toward politics and their role
within the political system
• Political socialization: how individuals form their political
attitudes and thus, collectively, how citizens form their
political culture; we conclude by describing the major trends
in political culture in the world politics today
9. Mapping the Three Levels of Political
Culture
• A nation’s political culture includes its citizens’
orientations at three levels:
– The political system
– The political and policymaking process
– Policy outputs and outcomes
10. Mapping the Three Levels of Political
Culture
• The system level involves how people view the values
and organizations that comprise the political system.
• The process level includes expectations of how
politics should function and individuals’ relationship
to the political process.
• The policy level deals with the public’s policy
expectations for the government.
11. The System Level
• It is difficult for any political system to endure
if it lacks the support of its citizens.
– Feelings of national pride are considered an
affective, emotional tie to a political system.
12. The System Level
• Feelings of popular legitimacy are another
foundation for a successful political system.
– Citizens may grant legitimacy to a government for different
reasons.
• Tradition, ideology, elections, or religion
– In systems with low legitimacy, people often resort to
violence or extra-governmental actions to solve political
disagreements.
13. The Process Level
• The second level of the political culture involves what the
public expects of the political process.
• Broadly speaking, three different patterns describe the
citizens’ role in the political process.
– Participants are involved as actual or potential participants in the
political process.
– Subjects passively obey government officials and the law, but they do
not vote or actively involve themselves in politics.
– Parochials are hardly aware of government and politics.
14. The Process Level
• Hypothetical examples: How are citizen types distributed
within these examples?
– Modern industrial democracy
– Industrialized authoritarian society
– Authoritarian society that is party traditional and partly modern
– Democratic pre-industrial system
• How does social and economic modernization affect the
distribution of citizen types and the political norms of a
system?
• What has been the nature of modernization across the world?
15. The Policy Level
• What is the appropriate role of government?
– Policy expectations vary across the globe.
– Some policy goals such as economic well-being are valued by nearly
everyone.
– Variation in terms of what is expected relates to a nation’s
circumstances and cultural traditions.
• One of the basic measures of government performance is its
ability to meet the policy expectations of its citizens.
• Expectations regarding the functioning of government:
outputs (providing welfare and security) or process features
(rule of law and procedural justice)
16. Consensual or Conflictual Political Cultures
• When a country is deeply divided in its political
values and these differences persist over time,
distinctive political subcultures may develop.
– They have sharply different points of view on some critical
political matters, such as the boundaries of the nation, the
nature of the regime, or the correct ideology.
– Sometimes historical or social factors will generate
different cultural trajectories.
• Ethnic, religious, or linguistic identities
• Migration
17. Why Culture Matters
• Cultural norms typically change slowly and reflect stable
values.
– It encapsulates the history, traditions, and values of a society.
– Congruence theory
• The distribution of cultural patterns is typically related to the type of
political process that citizens expect and support.
• Do democracies create a participatory democratic public, or does a
political culture lead to a democratic political system?
– It works both ways.
– Political culture can build common political community, but it can also
have the power to divide.
18. Political Socialization
• Political cultures are sustained or changed as people
acquire their attitudes and values.
• Political socialization refers to the way in which
political values are formed and political culture is
transmitted from one generation to the next.
– Most children acquire their basic political values and
behavior patters at a relatively early age.
– Some attitudes will evolve and change throughout life.
19. Political Socialization
• Three general points about socialization:
– Socialization can occur in different ways.
• Direct socialization
– Socialization is a lifelong process.
– Patterns of socialization can be either unifying or
divisive.
20. Agents of Political Socialization
• Individuals, organizations, and institutions that influence
political attitudes.
– Family
– Schools
– Religious institutions
• Fundamentalism
– Peer groups
– Social class
– Interest groups
– Political parties
– Mass media
• Global influence; most people in the world watch television to learn about
the world
21. Direct Contact with the Government
• In modern societies, the wide scope of
governmental activities bring citizens into
frequent contact with bureaucratic agencies.
• Personal experiences are powerful agents of
socialization.
22. Trends Shaping Contemporary Political
Cultures (1)
• Democratization
• Marketization
– Greater public acceptance of free markets and
private profit incentives, rather than a
government-managed economy
• Globalization
23. Trends Shaping Contemporary Political
Cultures (2)
• Political culture is not a static phenomenon.
– Encompasses how the agents of political socialization
communicate and interpret historic events and traditional
values
– Important to understand
• Influences how citizens act, how the political process functions,
and what policy goals the government pursues
24. American Foreign Policy (1)
American Foreign Policymakers generally believe that
morality is not a primary factor for basing policy in the
international arena. Morgenthau offers a prophetic
Hobbesian declaration that “there is neither morality nor
law outside the state”. He goes on to state, “There is a
profound and neglected truth hidden in Hobbes’s extreme
dictum that the state creates morality as well as law and
there is neither morality nor law outside the state. Universal
moral principles, such as justice or equality, are capable of
guiding political action only to the extent that they have
been given concrete content and have been related to
political situations by society.”
25. American Foreign Policy (2)
Hans Morgenthau offers five points to back his position. First,
there is a cosmic humility that determines the moral principles
of states. Second, morality can place restraints on the actions
states undertake. Third, state actions are influenced by
universal moral principles, but this varies according to what is
happening in a given location at the given time. Fourth,
realists adhere to the belief that all decisions made in the
political sphere are selected according to moral principles.
Fifth, political realists can differentiate between their moral
sympathies and the national interests that demand utmost
priority.
26. American Foreign Policy (3)
Classical realists adhere to the belief that the selfish drive for power
comes from human nature. This in turn has produced the anarchical
world order with states taking their role as selfish pursuers of power
from their political masters. The only kind of power that matters
most to classical realists is political-military power, with economic,
cultural or other types falling to the wayside. It is believed that the
only way for peace to reign in the world is for a balance of power to
emerge where many states band together to serve as a
counterbalance against a potential Hegemon. Strength is the
ultimate variable that determines this balance with power serving as
a foundation from which peace can blossom. Hans Morgenthau
does not agree with the assertion made by Enlightenment liberals
and Marxists who believe that selfish pursuits of power will be
rendered obsolete as human history progresses.
27. Classical Realism
Classical realists like Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold
Niebuhr believed that states acted like human beings
as both sought dominance over their respective
competitors. This in turn caused competition to
morph into war. Morgenthau stressed the virtues of
classical realist with his declaration that the bipolar
system of rivalry was a dangerous predicament that
would lead to catastrophic destruction. He instead
called for multipolarity as a way to construct a balance
of power system that would maintain international
stability.
•
28. Multipolarity & Classical Realism
Classical realists like Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold
Niebuhr believed that states acted like human beings as both
sought dominance over their respective competitors. This in
turn caused competition to morph into war. Morgenthau
stressed the virtues of classical realist with his declaration
that the bipolar system of rivalry was a dangerous
predicament that would lead to catastrophic destruction. He
instead called for multipolarity as a way to construct a
balance of power system that would maintain international
stability.
29. Offense/Defense Theory (Realism)
Offense-defense theory was laid out by Robert Jervis, George
Quester and Stephen Van Ever. The theory stresses that wars
come about more frequently when states see others as being too
weak to defend against attack. Better defenses served to preserve
the peace as it became more costly to attack another state for the
benefits that would be derived would not outpace the costs
associated with an offensive strike. These defensive realists saw
states as merely wanting to survive in an anarchic world where if
need be great states could be depended upon to guarantee the
security of weaker states through the construction of security
guarantees. Defensive military postures were further strengthened
with the acclimation of nuclear forces that were utilized to deter
offensive attacks for the cost of doing so would be cataclysmic.
30. Realism / Multilateralism Post 1940s
US foreign policy was based upon two strategies since the
1940s. The first was realist in its construction as it was based
on containment, deterrence, and maintaining a global
balance of power. The second strategy was forged over the
course of World War II as the US constructed a new system
of relations based on institutionalized political relations with
other integrated market democracies, along with continued
growth of new markets. Ikenberry gives an example of the
liberal grand strategy purported by the government by
quoting Richard Hass, policy-planning director at the State
Department: “…the principal aim of American foreign policy
is to integrate other countries and organizations into
arrangements that will sustain a world consistent with US
interests and values”.
31. Balance Of Power – Realism (1)
Realists affirm that power can serve to deter threats, but too
much power can force other actors to respond harshly,
sparking a ‘security dilemma’, which is a situation when
actors begin pursuing more power, resulting in an
environment that is less safe. Realists, especially classical
realists are assumed to be war-mongering theorists that are
only concerned with acquiring more power. This is not the
case at all as most of the school are actually cautious,
humble, favoring alliances and multilateralism.
32. Balance Of Power – Realism (2)
Hans Morgenthau states that, “Political realism refuses to identify
the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that
govern the universe.” This assumes that realists do not think in
terms of righting wrongs, but only in terms of power in all its forms
including is acquisition, preservation and maintaining the balance
of power. Realism promotes the balancing of state power.
Morgenthau would see any call for transcending this balance as an
idealistic assumption that runs counter to the lessons offered by
history. He would therefore argue against a foreign policy that
favored unilateral action as a stepping stone to assuming absolute
power over the world order. Any such undertaking would lead the
weaker states to join together in a counterbalancing manner to re-
establish a balance of power.
33. Neo-Realism
Classical realism focuses on human nature, whereas neorealism
has taken this assumption and applied it the existing anarchic
realm of “self-interested, competitive, mutually suspicious and
antagonistic states.” Neo-realism sees the international political
system as one unit with interconnecting linkages existing
between structural and units. In contrast to old realism’s
contention that human nature is the drive for self-interest, neo-
realists looks at the entire system to understand how single
actors, or states, base their actions. States are seen as individual
units that pursue their self-interests with the most important
one being their survival.
34. Neo-Realism Vs. Realism (1)
Classical realism focuses on human nature, whereas neorealism
has taken this assumption and applied it the existing anarchic
realm of “self-interested, competitive, mutually suspicious and
antagonistic states.” Neo-realism sees the international political
system as one unit with interconnecting linkages existing between
structural and units. In contrast to old realism’s contention that
human nature is the drive for self-interest, neo-realists looks at the
entire system to understand how single actors, or states, base their
actions. States are seen as individual units that pursue their self-
interests with the most important one being their survival. Kenneth
Waltz suggests that neo-realism’s definition of the international
system being the structure of study represents its break with
classical realism. Neorealists also state that states want to
enhance their security and not power as argued by realists.
35. Neo-Realism Vs. Realism (2)
Kenneth Waltz contends that neo-realism is markedly different from
traditional realism in four customs: neorealism accepts the
international system as being the determining factor guiding state
action; neorealism can alter causal relations; defines power
differently; and handles units in another fashion. Realists see the
world as that of interacting states, whereas neorealists can only
study interacting states by first differentiating structural-unit level
causes and effects. Realists may think of causes going in one
direction, from the interacting states to the outcome produced.
Neorealists in turn look at the entire structure that serves as a
conduit shuttling gives and takes between states. Outcomes can
affect how a state bases its policies for instance. Hans Morgenthau
is regarded as the father of power politics. He has even warned of
the seemingly cosmic dangers of realism and has been an
advocate of world government.
36. Utopian Realism (1)
Utopian theories of the interwar period were discredited primarily
because of its normative bias towards international law,
organization and collective security as a means to construct a
balance of power that would forever maintain equilibrium of
peaceful relations between nation-states. Woodrow Wilson
accepted the fate of his utopian dream as it was fully discredited
by political scientists following the failure of the United States to
fully participate in the League of Nations. Diplomacy has its limits.
Without the threat of force, diplomacy collapses. Pfaltzgraff details
why normative theory by itself has failed to adequately explain why
countries or its leaders tend to result to conflict or using force to
solve problems that a moralist would rather deal with
diplomatically.
37. Utopian Realism (2)
Ken Booth presents utopian realism as more of an “…attitude of
mind than a ‘theory’ with powers of explanation and prediction. But
it is based upon both normative (‘utopian’) and empirical (‘realist’)
theories.” Booth states the normative elements consisting of
universal appeal that are based on reason and commonly held
world principles that represent the foundation for academic
studies. The empirical element seeks to make the world more
intelligible by going beyond realism, instead towards an
established set of ideas that offers an understanding of the various
forces shaping, in the words of Harold Lasswell, “Who gets what,
when and how.”.
38. Utopian Realism (3)
Ken Booth outlines a method one can utilize to understand
utopian realism. First, a counter-attack needs to be
formulated according to ‘utopian’ thinking. We also need to
understand the motives of those who label ideas or thinkers
as ‘utopian’ as a means for attack. Second, utopian thinking
as a means of practicing politics can be used to set goals for
the purpose of acting on behalf of challenging the status quo
or realist thinking in the political sciences. Booth argues that
‘utopian thinking’ calls for the re-educating of human reason
for most of the produced thinking by mankind is the
reasoning of emotions.
39. Realist Force Conception
• E. H. Carr argues that there exist two opposite poles of utopian
feelings of right and realist conceptions of force. He stresses that
there exists a need for a combination of both utopia and reality so
that society can come to a favorable compromise between power
and morality. Politics and law is viewed as a ‘meeting place’ for
ethics and power where both can come together in order to
facilitate continued progress towards a utopian society. Classical
realists like Thomas Hobbes, Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans
Morgenthau argued that egoism and power politics stemmed
from human nature. Structural realists or neorealists moved away
from human nature and instead stressed anarchy. Kenneth Walt
stated that anarchy allows conflict to brew as “wars occur
because there is nothing to prevent them”. He goes on to infer
that it is the actions of predator states whose behavior is fostered
from human nature or its domestic politics that forces other
states to respond in kind if they are to survive.
40. National Interest – Realism
Robert L. Pfaltzgraff defines the national interest as, “…ultimately
the prudent use of power to safeguard those interests most vital to
the survival of the nation-state.” The author further states that by
studying history, realists are able to produce a generalization about
what certain preconditions have to exist for a nation-state to pursue
policies of aggression to secure their nation-interest. Nation-states
pursue their individual national-interests on a never-ending basis,
which in turn leads to a stable international system. Defenders of a
competitive security system suggest that states are forever striving
to increase their security in relation to that of other states. This
would entail ego’s gain as alter’s loss and as a result is prone to
security dilemmas. In a cooperative security system, states equate
the security of each as a contribution to the collective good.
National interests are seen to bolster international interests.
41. Self-Help (Realism)
States are succumbed to existing in a self-help system.
Robert Axelrod has demonstrated that this reality has
produced only one method for maximizing collective gain and
that is the “tit-for-tat” tactic. Kenneth Waltz argues that the
self-help system may lead the most powerful states to further
widen the gaps in economic, military and political power
between themselves and weaker members. Many have
argued as this author that conflict is rooted in human nature
and this will always remain so regardless of the structure of
the international system.
42. Institutions (Realism)
Realism asserts that international institutions serve the interests of
the most powerful member states, not international interests. The
expansion of NATO is a good example as this action satisfies the
interests of member states. Realists do not recognize institutions
as possessing the power to impact state behavior. These
institutions are instead a reflection of the distribution of the power in
the world, constructed to satisfy the self-interest of the most
powerful members. Institutionalists counter that this is a wrong
presumption as institutions can affect state behavior as it is seen to
be in the best interests of each member to work out their
differences to assure peaceful coexistence. Realists acknowledge
the role that institutions can play in the international system,
especially how states can utilize them to perceive self-interests.
43. No Higher Authority
There is no higher authority than the nation-
state. They cannot willingly cede either in part
or in full their authority to international riles and
agreements. Every state retains the right to
withdraw from any agreement regardless of any
consequence. This results in an international
system consisting of both law and power politics
that continuously mix.
44. Realism & Core States
Realists are more likely to assume that core states are democratic,
whereas periphery states remain authoritarian. Core states are
prone to recognizing the sovereignty of other core states, but are
willing to ignore the sovereignty of periphery countries if it serves
their interests. Thomas Barnet is a professor at the US Naval War
College who authored a model that may enlighten students to how
the Bush Administration conducts foreign policy. Professor Barnett
first splits the world in two distinct areas. The first contains “The
Functioning Core” which are developed or those in the process of
development that is entrenched in the capitalist system and remains
committed to globalization. In the camp is the “Non-Integrating Gap”
which contains poor, repressive and unstable governments that
have not been allowed in the globalization club. Professor Barnet
then goes on to state that the main security threat for Core states is
not one another as realists would presume, but the threat presented
by unstable regimes that emphatically voice their disenchantment
with the world order and in turn produce terrorists who are further
incensed over the gap between the two camps.
45. Realism & Institutions
Realism asserts that international institutions serve the
interests of the most powerful member states, not
international interests. The expansion of NATO is a
good example as this action satisfies the interests of
member states. Realists do not recognize institutions
as possessing the power to impact state behavior.
These institutions are instead a reflection of the
distribution of the power in the world, constructed to
satisfy the self-interest of the most powerful members.
46. Realism / Multilateralism Post 1940s
US foreign policy was based upon two strategies since the
1940s. The first was realist in its construction as it was based on
containment, deterrence, and maintaining a global balance of
power. The second strategy was forged over the course of World
War II as the US constructed a new system of relations based on
institutionalized political relations with other integrated market
democracies, along with continued growth of new markets.
Ikenberry gives an example of the liberal grand strategy
purported by the government by quoting Richard Hass, policy-
planning director at the State Department: “…the principal aim of
American foreign policy is to integrate other countries and
organizations into arrangements that will sustain a world
consistent with US interests and values”.
47. Realist Force Conception
E. H. Carr argues that there exist two opposite poles of utopian
feelings of right and realist conceptions of force. He stresses that
there exists a need for a combination of both utopia and reality so
that society can come to a favorable compromise between power
and morality. Politics and law is viewed as a ‘meeting place’ for
ethics and power where both can come together in order to
facilitate continued progress towards a utopian society. Classical
realists like Thomas Hobbes, Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans
Morgenthau argued that egoism and power politics stemmed from
human nature. Structural realists or neorealists moved away from
human nature and instead stressed anarchy. Kenneth Walt stated
that anarchy allows conflict to brew as “wars occur because there is
nothing to prevent them”. He goes on to infer that it is the actions of
predator states whose behavior is fostered from human nature or its
domestic politics that forces other states to respond in kind if they
are to survive.
